Australian calls for Boycott of US over lack of Gun Control after shooting

<Yesterday, former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer has urged Australian tourists to boycott the US in the wake of the shooting murder of the Melbourne baseball star.

Mr Fischer said he was deeply angered by the latest tragedy and said turning our backs on America would help send a stern message about the need for tighter gun control.

Mr Fischer, who led Australia's gun control reforms alongside former prime minister John Howard in 1996, said choosing not to travel to the US would help build pressure on the US Congress to finally act.

"Tourists thinking of going to the USA should think twice,'' Mr Fischer said.

"This is the bitter harvest and legacy of the policies of the NRA that even blocked background checks for people buying guns at gunshows.>

93. What the Aussies really need to do is stop giving a market to US gun runners. nt

2. So long as its OK for Americans to boycott Australian tourism, good and services in response.

Americans certainly do not support the murder, and the prosecutor appears anxious to punish the offender as severely as the law will allow. Australia is certainly not immune to violent crime, with or without the use of a gun.

If Mr. Fischer believes that America should be punished through trade because we generally support gun rights, well, be careful what you wish for. If his boycott takes hold, which I very much doubt, don't be surprised if Americans, including many Democrats, decide that Australia might not be good tourist destination or that their dollars should not be spent on Australian goods.

Nevertheless, his convenient political preening is likely meaningless. Any Australian so afraid of American gun laws, or misinformed and do not believe tourists are as safe here as anywhere, already would not visit the United States.

He links his opposition to guns to former PM Howard. Although Howard is in fact a gun opponent, he often speaks quite positively about the United States and often visits the country. I'll take Fischer's hyperbolic boycott talk more seriously when John Howard vocally agrees to such nonsense.

3. generally supporting gun control is a great idea but the cold hard facts are that the NRA and the

gun manufacturers have laws written in their favor because they have bought and paid for politicians. Our laws favor gun ownership, not gun control. We couldn't even get mandatory universal background checks after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Can you imagine how we must look to the rest of the world?

Protections for gun rights are also guaranteed by most state constitutions. Even if these protections disappeared tomorrow, it would only permit additional regulation. As you have already noted that universal background checks could not pass the Senate (no less the House), and concealed carry reciprocity actually garnered more Senate votes than the background checks, the chances of passing significantly greater firearm regulation, no less laws similar to Australia, is slightly higher than zero.

We've both been through this before. American's have a unique culture, just like Australians, British, Chinese, Russians, Mexican, Germans or anyone else. Most American happen to believe quite strongly in a broad right to keep and bear arms. You and others, of course, are free to disagree and seek changes to the law or amend the Constitution. Democracy is wonderful. You are also free to try to convince others of the wisdom of your proposals by exclaiming how bad we must look to other countries. To be blunt, good luck with that.

Similarly, free people may visit the United States, or not, for whatever reasons they choose. I highly doubt that a call for a tourist boycott by a former deputy prime minister of Australia will even result in a rounding error in the trade and travel relationship between our countries.

As Australia is hardly a utopia free of violence, particularly with the increases in the percentages of homicides using a knife, maybe Mr. Fischer should concentrate on solving the criminal problems of his own country.

17. Many of the amendments have exceptions.

A case could be made equating openly letting unbalanced or violent people have guns is similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater. And at some point the "American" culture will change enough to push past the propaganda from the gun lobbies. We have many subcultures and more and more sensible people throughout them are beginning to understand the broader problems. Being able to get a concealed carry license on line is insane. Domestic abusers often have repeated access to guns.

More people are beginning to wonder why we have such an inconsistent patchwork of gun control laws. This clearly doesn't work. And saying it doesn't work is no reason to say consistency and consistent enforcement won't work. I read that gun laws are unenforceable almost every day in our local paper. That really doesn't make any sense. The gun issue is a divisive distraction. We have more serious issues to face. And we are not doing that.

22. The problems you focus on are mostly addressed by current law.

Felons, those judicially determined to be a danger to themselves or others, and domestic abusers, already cannot own or possess firearms under current statutes that are under no constitutional challenge by the NRA or anyone else.

You also appear to want uniform laws. Be very careful what you wish for. In the recent gun debate, national concealed carry reciprocity received more votes in the Senate than universal background checks, and would likely pass the House where background checks would have suffered a quick death.

Would agree to more liberalized gun laws on firearm ownership, possession and use on the condition that they were subject to uniform federal oversight?

60. Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I live in Colorado Springs, CO.

Most of the pro gun discussion here involves Rush Limbaugh type diatribe. A reasonable discussion is not possible. Democratic led legislation has created something of a firestorm here. We have been told all of us liberals are going to learn fear, and any state legislator will shake in terror of retribution and recall if he or she even thinks of "infringement" of any gun "rights". The right to vote, however, can be closely regulated according to the same people.

Here is a link to the new changes that seem to cause intensely partisan gun advocates to froth at the mouth in outrage. Closing loopholes seems to be a horrific infringement to them. Many here believe that the money behind all this, some coming through our purported Libertarian Independence Institute, is from the gun industry and corporate interest groups interested in distracting and inciting the GOP extremists. If you pay attention to politics here you feel as if you have been taken up in right wing whirlwind. Reasoned discussion doesn't exist between the parties as it also doesn't at the national level for many of the same reasons.

These, as I understand, have been endorsed by the Colorado Association of Police chiefs.

I think uniform federal oversight is needed, I don't know what you mean by "liberalized" gun laws. What concerns me is the hysteria being promulgated by what appear to be opportunists misrepresenting the bills to people all to willing to believe in "liberal evildoers". There was a time for discussion and input from GOP legislators, they chose to incite fear, paranoia and protest instead. I think it is pathetic, but also dangerous. After reading about Jonathan Haidt's research and conclusions, I can better understand where the fear originates and why it is encouraged. Reasoned discourse has been abandoned, if it has ever existed for very long.

63. My point is basically that the gun debate is complicated.

The issues go well beyond one's feelings concerning the Second Amendment, and involve culture, geography and many underlying social and economic issues than transcend divisions of party loyalty.

As the recent debates after Newton clear demonstrate, the will to enact even minor federal legislation is lacking, no less more comprehensive measures of dubious constitutionality.

I am not a gun owner, nor have any desire to own one. I live and work in NYC and feel quite safe. However, as an attorney, I believe the entire Constitution should be broadly interpreted to guaranty maximum personal liberty and civil rights. The Second Amendment is not an exception. Such a slippery could ultimately erode hard won battles such as a woman's right to choose and privacy protections. Additionally, as a citizen, I realize that some people's living and work situations are far more volatile than my own, and would not wish to deny anyone the most effective means of self-defense.

I think we can agree on the following: If you want to reduce the number of guns in America, addressing the social and economic conditions that make people feel the need or want to own a gun, would be effective, legal, and agreeable to both sides of the the gun debate.

37. Did you even read my comment?

The "stupid punks" who murdered the Aussie were minors and illegally possessed and used their firearms under even the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. They are being prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law. I would also add that they could have just as easily committed their crime with a common kitchen knife. The gun issue is a red herring.

However, apart from your snark, do you have any actual response to my analysis of Second Amendment jurisprudence, cultural trends in the USA concerning firearm ownership and use, the political and legal viability of changing federal and state constitutions and statutes concerning guns, or Australia's own increasing problem of violent crimes committed with knives?

44. I live in Australia — and travel internationally a lot . . .

And I can tell you exactly how we look to the rest of the world: like we're effing nuts.

Australia's response to a Sandy Hook-level horror was imposition of sane gun control legislation that almost everyone in Australia agrees with, including the thousands of Aussie who haven't died from gun violence since 1996.

25. Theory? I've included the stats on median wealth per adult for the countries. Do the math.

50% of American adults have total wealth of $38K or lower. That wealth includes their income, their property, etc. None of those folks can afford to go to Australia. They probably can't afford to go to Mexico or Canada unless they drive, assuming their car can even make it. 50%, gone for sure. We also know that the wealth of Americans doesn't start to trend up appreciably until the 90% mark. 90% of Americans simply can't afford to go to Australia. They might be able to save up and do a trip that costs what it costs to go to Australia once or twice in their lives. Maybe.

50% of Australians have total wealth of $190K or higher. Those folks can easily afford a trip a year anywhere, probably several per year. The Aussies I've met out and about seem to be traveling all the time and they were/are not wealthy by Australian standards. We also know that wealth is much more evenly distributed in Australia as compared to here, the Median wealth number is a strong corroboration for that. The folks that could easily afford a trip anywhere probably goes down to the 15th percentile, perhaps even lower. i.e. 85% of Australians can afford to do a trip like to the US once per year.

32. So then the answer is no?

I'm not saying you must be wrong, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the higher median wealth of Australians translates into higher aggregate spending on international travel than Americans. Maybe they spend more on crocodile hunting, Foster's, or savings, we just don't know based on the wealth figures and your travel experiences. I think it is definitely an interesting theory, if there is any data out there that bears it out, I would be interested to see it.

36. OK, took some doing. Here are the stats...

The number of Australian residents travelling overseas for trips of less than a year has grown at an unprecedented rate over recent years. In the 12 months to June 2010, 6.8 million overseas trips were made by Australians, up from 2.1 million two decades earlier. In per capita terms, this was the equivalent to 31 trips overseas for every 100 Australian residents in 2009-10, up from 12 trips per 100 residents in 1989-90.

The real story is that when broken down, those 25.8 million trips overseas were taken by approximately just 13.3 million American residents. And that means that in total, the real number of Americans that actually traveled (took trips) overseas in 2009 for either business or leisure, was about 15.5 million --o r just five percent of our nation's 311 million residents!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are some caveats here. An overseas trip for an American on average is shorter. Mexico is considered overseas. The rest of Latin America and the caribbean is considered overseas.

When an Australian travels overseas, it's usually a big trip. The big population centers of Asia are even farther than most of Latin America.

86. There are a couple of other factors that affect the significance of 'median wealth' . . .

For one, almost all Aussies' wealth is tied up in their homes (just like Americans), but those homes are hugely more expensive than equivalent American homes.

The majority of Aussies live in cities and their suburbs (>70%) where median housing prices sit at AUD400-500 thousand. That pretty much takes care of your 193K per capita right there. But that wealth is not liquid, and while some older people do mortgage their houses and travel after retirement, that option is not generally available to younger families.

Secondly, the cost of living is insanely higher here. A beer in a pub is AUD8 minimum. A starter car is 40,000. An economy flight from Sydney to Perth is AUD900, a meal for two with a glass of house wine in a family restaurant is AUD100. (The only thing that's inexpensive is health care, which is nearly free.) Taxes are also substantially higher — including an across-the-board consumption tax called GST, which adds 10% to most purchases, and income tax that tops out at about 50%.

It's true that Aussies love to travel. But hey — if you lived there (as I do), you'd travel too. Not that Australia is a bad place to live (it is, literally, one of the best places in the world) it is nevertheless at the ass end of nowhere, and it's most certainly not London, or New York, or LA, or Paris, or Stockholm, or Munich, etc., etc., etc.

88. Many of those prices are very similar to the big US cities and their suburbs

NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco in particular have restaurant and real estate prices very similar to what you just listed. But you wont find median wealth per adult even in those cities and their suburbs at $193K. Probably not even close to that.

Sure, we have an impressive pocket of super wealthy people here. But wealth for the rest of NYC drops off sharply.

Australia does not have that issue. You can say that the wealth is mostly tied up in homes and claim that this means the wealth is not liquid, but if you have that kind of equity in your home, you can borrow against that equity quite easily. You can sell that home and move to an apartment. You have options. It's quite different from someone whose total wealth is $15,000-40,000.

On Edit: Note the above graphic is household wealth, not wealth per adult.

89. Your point is well taken, but. . .

The median prices I cited apply to just about all Australian cities, not just the traditionally expensive ones (of course, Australia only has five major cities and about 15 medium/minor ones for its 23 million population).

One of the differences is that wealth inequity is much less pronounced, so even when you factor in "the big end of town" it's a much smaller proportion of households than would be the case in the US.

There are what we would call slums, sad to say, but they are almost entirely rural, where median per capita wealth is more like the yellow areas in your map above.

97. Interesting. From reading your own link, both stats can be more or less true

Of the 2.2 million people your stat cites as living in poverty, 600,000 are children, most of whom live in 1 adult families. The stats I was quoting were median wealth per adult.

600,000 are children, around another 600,000 are the single adults that live with those children. Another 1 million are not explained. Still, 2.2 million is actually closer to 1 in 10. Population of Australia is 22 million right now.

66. WTF? An average Italian is worth almost 3x the average German?!

Something seems fishy here, like some cooking the books with real estate is going on. I'm guessing that's what is pushing Australia's numbers up on the high side and doubt it's a reliable indicator of disposable income.

I'm also quite sure if you used the mean instead of the median for wealth the US would go way up on the list (not that that's a good thing).

69. That's one reason so many Germans oppose the bailouts

Despite the economic disasters in Italy (and even worse Spain), median wealth in both countries is higher than in Germany. Mean wealth in Italy ($212,910) is higher than that in Germany ($174,526), too, though Spain is much lower ($104,773) and falling fast. Numbers like these make a lot of Germans question why they're bailing out Spain, Italy, etc.

Of course, these data from the 2012 Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report (I can send you a copy which I downloaded; the link seems irretrievably broken) are not a measure of income. But income is more evenly distributed than wealth in every country, so this means income distribution is even more equal in Australia than wealth distribution is.

You are right that the U.S. comes out better on mean wealth per adult; it is #7 rather than #27. And you're right that it's not a good thing.

34. It's silly all around. It assumes that anyone of any consequence would agree to it on either side.

35. Ask South Africa how that worked for them.

It takes years for something like this to gain traction and it's probably hard to measure but once it sets in, it takes decades to dig out...and in the case of SA, only gut-wrenching cultural changes were sufficient to shift the global mindset.

Aparthied was ingrained in their laws as deeply as guns are in ours.

If, over years, something like this became a reality I suspect we would have to make the same gut-wrenching changes.

I've traveled overseas for business a lot in the past 25 years. There is no question attitudes about the US have changed for a lot of reasons. The US is not the "place to see" that it was 25, even 15 years ago and there are a lot more comments about "it's the wild west, so why bother".

It's like Amman Jordan or even Beirut today. We think everyone over there is getting shot at every day because the only news we hear is about the 3 guys at some rally in a no-whereville suburb getting shot at. That creates our view.

It's the same in reverse. When I tell people I'm from chicago, to a person there is some reference to "Ahhhh...bang bang...how did you survive". We know it's bullshit but that's the international view.

56. hey you let us know how that boycott works out for you, mkay?

65. I'm not advocating a boycott, that is precisely my point.

Nor do I believe Australians will engage in any noticeable economic action based on a murder that shocked and saddened Americans and could have as easily been carried out with a kitchen knife.

Citing the political pandering and opportunism of Mr. Fischer does little to constructively advance the gun debate in the USA, no less help reach compromises or advance the mutual economic interests of both our countries.

Australia and the USA are free countries. Mr. Fischer may say or advocate anything he wishes. I, however, do not have agree with its effectiveness or wisdom.

91. I imagine that there some who would boycott Australia due to their low rate

"So long as its OK for Americans to boycott Australian tourism..."

I imagine that there some who would boycott Australia due to their low rate (absolute and per capita) of gun violence. I'd find it silly to the point of absurdity, but by all means-- boycott that which is offensive to you, even if that offense is predicated on a more civil and less violent country.

47. when that happens DU's resident gun humpers get animated too

8. Maybe this will get the Australian gun laws and their effect on gun violence on the radar here.

I am so out of patience with effective gun laws being blocked by the preppers, the zombie phobes and the conspiracy theorists, and the over the top shoot, apart the house with really big guns home defenders. Guns are a part of our culture, but we let the stupidest, most inept and unbalanced people have easy access to them. Australia has figured this out. And I am not going to call them a bunch of weenie batters or cowering sissies. Not everyone needs to go around with a gun for "protection". And not all of the ones who do are proficient enough to use one effectively.

More guns equal more gun deaths. People used to understand this. For some people guns are like drugs. They are always going to want more. Requiring responsibility doesn't seem to be something that is valued. The people who respect guns and want to limit what they can do in irresponsible hands are not the ones being conned.

12. If you go to Australia

you can feel the difference immediately. The level of fear of others is so much less because the population is free from gun violence.Here, we who aren't participants in the gun culture have to go around always feeling paranoid and making children paranoid. It's like living in a prison.

OK with me if everybody would avoid America because of this barbarism.

41. The truth that many Americans don't want to see...

that there are horrendous inequities in the system that bring us all down and threaten to tear the thin fabric of civilized society apart.

Thanks for trying to educate people with the example of Australia. Americans have no idea what living in a country that actually invests in its people is like. It is mind-blowing.

Instead we here are fighting for basic rights that should have been settled beyond question decades ago--for the right to vote, for public education, for health care, unions, pensions, a fair wage, etc etc. not to mention clean air and water. That's how the Corporates keep Americans downtrodden and putting up with conditions that Australians can hardly even imagine.

76. He didn't say they were NRA members...

And if anyone who supported the strict gun control measures introduced here after the Port Arthur massacre is a 'gun-grabber', then count me among them. And just so you know, Tim Fisher was leader of the more conservative party in the Liberal/National coalition that was in govt and introduced those gun control laws. Much of his rural base opposed the laws, so as far as politicians go, he took a brave stance knowing that it could come back to bite his party at the next election.

I experienced the reaction in my country to a horrifying massacre, and when Sandy Hook happened, I thought similar would happen in the US. While it was clear the Democrats tried, a culture that doesn't think there's anything warped about carrying guns around and even in some cases towns having laws that mandate that people must own guns made sure that sensible gun control laws weren't going to happen, and ensure that there will be at some point another Sandy Hook.

49. If only the US would pass a law making it illegal for minors to buy firearms (nt)

50. Stay on your side of the Hemisphere then

The American infatuation with Australia, and all things Australian, began and ended with "Crocodile Dundee" and "Men In Hats" (Vegemite sandwiches), over 30 years ago.

However, I will give them credit for at least one of their, and Gods greatest contributions to civilization, the "Thunder From Down Under"...

Unless your name is Angus, Malcom, Brian, etc (yes, I'm aware that they're Scottish, English),
or you disapprove of, or are fearful of our gun control laws and/or BOR, please stay as far away from us as you can.

Everyone knows that along with Barry Manilow, AC/DC (they didn't suck till after Bon Scott choked to death on his own puke after a massive night drinking) inhabit one of the seven circles of musical hell...

83. Ah..Yes...No matter what I say, feelings will get hurt.

Quick thing. I go to visit my home land often...Well, no so often now.
You know, 3 years ago a flight to Sydney was something like $995.00 or maybe a little more.
NOW...Christ, it's at least twice that.

Fun thing. Look at the price to Sydney (First Class and within 3 days of now) it's usually around $20,000

67. I totally sympathize with his point and request, but he seems to not understand that

guns are one of the major draws for Australians (and many other tourists from all over the world), at least here in America's #1 tourist destination, Las Vegas. We have at least half a dozen Shoot a Real Machine Gun stores here and more are opening every month or so. These place are packed every minute they're open and basically none of the customers are American.

These places rent full-auto rifles of every size and type, and blowing $1,000 in a few minutes is standard fare.

If this trend keeps up, we might just have to add machine guns to our unofficial motto of Hookers and Blow.